Protestors demonstrate against President-elect Donald Trump outside Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Pa, on Nov. 13, 2016, after the Republican candidate lost the popular vote by more than a million votes, but won the electoral college. (Photo by Mark Makela/Getty Images)

Web Only /
Views » December 9, 2016

Tom Geoghegan: 4 Things We the People Can Do About Our Unjust Voting System and a President Trump

Email this article to a friend

your email

your name

recipient(s) email (comma separated)

message

captcha

Compulsory voting is an existential threat to the Electoral College. It will become too difficult to install a future Bush, or a Trump, who loses not just by one or two million but by 10 or more million votes.

Through the relic of the Electoral College, it is our shame to have elected, once again, the runner-up as president of the United States. By doing so, “We the People” have disgraced ourselves in front of the whole world. Consider all the forms of rigging in which the electorate is now entangled.

First, the election to the presidency is rigged. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by at least 2.6 million ballots.

Second, the U.S. Senate is rigged—even worse than the Electoral College. Half a million or so people in Wyoming having the same representation as nearly 40 million people in California. Throw in more tiny red states like North and South Dakota, and that alone explains why the Senate is still controlled by the GOP.

Third, the House is rigged. Thanks to gerrymandering, the largely Republican state legislatures decide who goes to Congress. “We the people” have lost our say.

Finally, appointments to the Supreme Court are rigged. Since there are no term limits, we have had a right-of-center Court for almost 50 years. And that right-of-center Court has upheld voter ID laws and other ways to suppress the vote, which benefits Republicans, allowing the Court go on being right of center. Did I mention the 5-to-4 vote in Bush v. Gore? Bush repaid that favor by naming two new justices to keep the Court rigged, 5 to 4.

So what is to be done?

1. Democratic electors: Engage in lawful protest

The first thing—above all, and as futile as it may seem—is to do everything we can to delegitimatize the system. The Democratic Party, as a party, has to commit to this project.

Let’s start with the Electoral College. We should have a boycott. In the coming weeks, in the 20 states (plus D.C.) that Clinton won, the electors should refuse to send in their ballots for a ceremonial counting by the Senate and the House. Federal law—I refer to 3 U.S.C. 1 et seq.—requires that on the second Wednesday in December, the electors send in the ballots to be recorded before a joint session of Congress. Electors also send copies of their ballots to the secretary of state and federal judge in their home states (among others). If the electors fails to send the ballots to Congress, the president of the Senate and the speaker of the House can direct that the ballots be forwarded from the sets kept by the secretary of state or the federal judge. But this time, let the Clinton electors notify the Congress that they will not participate in this sham. They will not send any ballots. Then let the House speaker and the Senate president send their emissaries to the secretary of state or federal judge. When they receive and start counting them, as they must do, these ballots can be blanks.

The point is not to stop Trump from taking office, but to protest it, which is different from the appeal to Trump electors to be “faithless,” that is, to change their votes from Trump to Clinton. As Abraham Lincoln said of the Dred Scott case: The point is not to resist the literal result—to return Dred Scott back then or keep Trump out of office now—but to do all that we can to discredit a law that allows an unconscionable result.

And if states impose $1,000 statutory fines on the electors for this expressive act, notwithstanding the First Amendment, well, the law is the law: Send in the checks.

2. Challenge voter suppression

Second, at the same joint session, House and Senate Democrats should object to the counting of votes from states that sought to suppress the vote. Wisconsin, for example, has a voter ID law that serves no purpose except to hold down the popular vote. Members should move to deny the count from Wisconsin, Arizona, and any other pro-Trump state where the outcome was close and there was a voter ID law in place that, at least arguably, violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Even better, members should “lay on petitions,” to use an archaic legal phrase, from people in these states to verify that there was an effort that might have kept some from the polls. The intent is to question the integrity of the votes cast in the Electoral College, and the model is the aftermath of the 1876 election. The dispute over one electoral vote led to the Compromise of 1877, in which the Republican, Rutherford Hayes, got the White House, while Democrats, who supported Samuel Tilden, got an end to Reconstruction. How wonderful if Democrats let Trump take the White House in return for Merrick Garland getting on the Supreme Court. This is unlikely: It is the kind of hardball that the Left, unlike the Right and alt-Right, never has the nerve to engage in. Still, the Democrats should use the joint session this December to put these states on trial for suppression of the vote.

3. Make the gap too big to ignore

Third, Democrats must institute compulsory voting in California and New York, in particular, and in as many of the other 15 states that Clinton carried as possible. Indeed, universal voting—which states have the authority to require—is the only tool that Democrats have to dismantle not just the Electoral College but the other ways that the GOP is now able to rig the vote.

One big state—California or New York—might be enough to set off a constitutional chain reaction. With compulsory voting in place in several states in the next presidential election, it is very likely that the Democrats would pile up a popular majority so immense that, under the weight of these new votes, the Electoral College, even as a half-credible institution, would simply collapse.

How big might the variation be? According to the latest figures from the Cook Political Report, Clinton leads Trump in the popular vote by a margin of more than 2.6 million, or 2 percent of the national vote. In California, voters preferred Clinton by a whopping margin of 30 percent. Let’s assume that split remained the same but all eligible voters in California cast ballots. That would adds another 3.2 million to her national margin over Trump, bringing it up to 5.8 million, or 4 percent of the popular vote. Then conduct the same calculation with New York. Then add in New Jersey, Illinois, Colorado and others.

Indeed, the lower overall turnout in this last election came in the Clinton states, where the outcome was assured. The focus on “battleground” states has a tendency—among Democrats especially—to hold down the votes in the “safe” states, as the safe GOP states can compensate for lower turnout among their voters by scaring off the Democrats.

Why would this growing disparity lead to an end to the Electoral College? It might not. But, to quote Lincoln again, it would create a house divided. With a right-of-center Supreme Court, the GOP will have license to go on scaring off minority race and low-income voters. The best way to fight this, since legal challenges will be less effective, is to do the opposite in Democratic states: rather than shrink the electorate, massively expand it.

Instead of trying to bridge the divide in our country, in other words, the Democrats should now widen it. Rather than trying to overcome our differences, we should accentuate them. Lincoln’s main point in the 1859 “house divided” speech was that the house could not stay divided. Only one version of America would survive.

With compulsory voting, the American “house” would be even more divided in the midterms, in which voter turnouts are now so low. In one half of the country, 95 percent or more of the electorate would vote, and in the other, the rate would continue on at 37 percent, or even lower. How long could the republic survive with such two different systems?

Some claim that compulsory voting would violate the First Amendment. But if that is true, then it would be unlawful to require jury duty. Yet we compel people serve on juries, and to render life-and-death verdicts.

Who are the non-voters? Overwhelmingly, they are young people, the poor and Hispanics. As the country becomes younger and more diverse, the GOP has every incentive to hold down the vote, while the Democrats have every reason to expand it, and to back the GOP into a corner.

Compulsory voting in some states—but not in others—is an existential threat to the Electoral College. It will become too difficult to install a future Bush, or a Trump, who loses not just by one or two million but by 10 or more million votes.

4. Create real majority rule—with a counter Constitution,

There is, finally, an even bolder way to commit to a “house divided.” To accentuate the divide, all or some of the Democratic states could enter an “interstate compact,” much as states now do for sharing of resources. This interstate compact, though, would be a quasi-constitution—a model for what the whole country should have. The Clinton states should elect delegates to do this compact-making. Aside from compulsory voting, here are just a few possible clauses that the states might agree to enforce against each other.

1. A ban on partisan redistricting of U.S. House and state legislature positions.

2. A right to healthcare.

3. A commitment to carry out their share of what the U.S. committed to in the Paris global warming accords.

4. A bill of rights for employees, including a right not to be terminated except for just cause.

5. A formula for a just level of funding for public education.

6. A comprehensive system of background checks for gun purchases.

Since each of the above is an act that the state itself would be free to take, an interstate compact would not infringe on federal sovereignty —or require approval of Congress under Article I, section 10.

Let one part of America, at least, be a city on a hill. It is time to press for a country that operates under two different kinds of constitutions, and see which of them prevails.

See why we’re re-inventing the In These Times magazine, and how you can be part of it.

Thomas Geoghegan is a Chicago-based labor lawyer. He is the author of several books, including Which Side Are You On?, The Secret Lives of Citizens, The Law in Shambles, Only One Thing Can Save Us, and Were You Born on the Wrong Continent?

ALL people in fly-over country are narrow minded; ALL people in fly-over country are "Christian Taliban", ALL people in fly-over country are have backward ideas, ALL people in fly-over country want to IMPOSE THEIR WILL ON US, THEIR URBAN SUPERIORS!!! ARRRGGHHH!!! YOU STUPID GOOBERS SHOULD JUST SHUT UP! We city dwellers know best, so get with the program!

Get over yourself. Oh no, wait - wrong term. Check your privilege.

Posted by EKFLA on 2017-05-16 10:36:21

Good Lord! You just can't stand it that all of us dumb goobers out in fly-over country didn't get with the program and vote the way the media and our urban betters wanted us to. The Electoral College worked exactly the way it is supposed to; it prevented the higher populated states or in this case, the higher populated cities within a state, from dictating to the rest of the country who will be President.

Posted by EKFLA on 2017-05-16 10:25:39

Well bud there is a way constitutionally (yes I know you hate that document) to do whatever you want. .

Posted by Dierwolf on 2017-05-01 06:02:07

I have profited $104000 in last 12 months by working from my home a­n­d I did that by wo­rking in my own time f­­o­­r several hrs on daily basis. I followed a money making model I found on-line and I am so thrilled that i earned such great money. It's really user-friendly a­­n­­d I'm just so blessed that i discovered this. Here’s what I did... go to my account page for details of site

Posted by Rene M. Cooney on 2017-03-01 00:04:44

I have made 104,000 bucks in 2016 by freelancing on-line and I was able to do it by working in my own time f­o­r few h each day. I used a money making opportunity I found online and I am so thrilled that I was able to earn so much money on the side. It's really user-friendly a­n­d I'm so happy that i discovered it. This is what i do... SECURE37.COM

Posted by Harry Bryant on 2017-02-17 00:21:16

I profited 104,000 bucks last year by freelancing online and I did it by w­o­r­k­i­n­g part time for few hrs every day. I followed a business model I stumbled upon from company that i found online and I am so amazed that i was able to make so much money. It's very user friendly a­­n­­d I'm so thankful that I found out about it. Here is what i did... STATICTAB.COM/6mairvf

Posted by AmyDavies on 2017-02-08 01:10:59

it will be a cold day in hell before the heartland allows the NY and Calif ghettos to decide the direction for the whole country

Posted by lilbear68 on 2017-01-20 07:58:41

"The federal government can do it far more efficiently"?!? You mean like the VA Hospitals? Where is there a single instance of the government being more efficient than the private sector?

Use government to ensure the private sector plays correctly...kind of like restaurant health inspectors...but for God sake don't make government the chefs.

I agree that insurance premiums shouldn't be paid for by employers. But with your prescription, they're paying for it anyway even if their employees are writing the checks to a bloated, uncaring government bureaucracy.

Posted by Pearl Nathanson on 2017-01-14 22:03:01

That 10th Amendment argument you present has long since been lost since the creation of Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid. You are being too literal and not understanding that it is the role of government at the federal level to provide for the health and welfare of the nation. What you should ask is why is it the employers' job to provide health insurance to employees when the federal government can do so far more efficiently? American business should demand the federal government take over the role of providing health insurance via payroll tax so that their businesses can become more competitive and their annual budgets more accurate to predict.

Let's get on with it so we may focus on other issues that vex our future.

Posted by Fortyfour on 2017-01-14 14:02:09

Agreed an thank you. "Forced voting" proposals coming from those who call Trump fascist is amusing. Thanks for the laugh, Tom.

Posted by Pearl Nathanson on 2017-01-14 13:36:51

because...?

Posted by Pearl Nathanson on 2017-01-14 13:35:13

Why is it the government's job to provide ANY health care plan? Ever read the Constitution (especially the 10th Amendment)?

Posted by Pearl Nathanson on 2017-01-14 13:34:49

How quaint and amusing this all seems now a week before inauguration. Thank you "In These Times" writers and editors for always adding such delightfully diverting humor to my day.

Why does the popular vote matter? We're a republic, not a democracy and, moreover, if the election were to have been won by the popular vote, Trump would have campaigned differently.

Harping on about the popular vote makes about as much sense as counting by counties: Barack Obama only won 22 percent of the counties in the United States with Clinton winning only, at most, 15 percent. Therefore, both Obama and Clinton relied heavily on the most populous counties for their votes, but why should the rest of the entire nation have to be led around by the nose due to those small minorities?

This is like complaining that your defeated football team should be declared the victor because they had more yardage. Even worse, when you declare the real victor "illegitimate" for the same reason.Please wake up and be more open to correction when you're wrong.

Posted by Pearl Nathanson on 2017-01-14 13:32:27

you're NOT HELPING unite the country with your rudness

Posted by Lydia Mpls on 2017-01-01 14:23:20

Ironically though, the MAJORITY of people in this country (who live in URBAN areas) are supposed to be willing to trust decisions about OUR lives to people in "fly-over country". Folks in "fly-over country" HATE taxes--but, have no problem having MORE MONEY GO to them then THEY pay in. "Fly-over" people parrot the most narrow-minded opinions--& then claim the Constitution supports their backward ideas--and then, want to IMPOSE THEIR WILL (such as deciding for ALL women what we can do with OUR bodies or to DENY gay couples the SAME rights heterosexual couples have under the law. No one in urban areas is FORCING fundamenalist Christians to take birth control or have abortions or be in same-sex relationships...but, like a Christian Taliban, "fly-over" people DEMAND that ALL of us live like them. You're the ones who CAN'T be trusted.

Posted by Lydia Mpls on 2017-01-01 14:22:04

I like most everything you said. I do not favor obligatory voting.

Im glad you quit being a pederast priest and now just mess with people's minds and not their behinds.

Posted by navajones on 2016-12-23 16:44:11

Think Florida in the 2000 election x 50 states & the District of Columbia. That sounds really hard to manage. Republican dominated states would go wild to scrounge up more votes, same thing in Democratic states. That would be a huge, complicated mess. I think keeping some form of the college is wise but making it better reflect the popular vote. Eliminating the every state gets two extra votes for having two Senators sounds better to me but I am sure some type of improvement could be gained without losing the relative ease of the recount format in the electoral college is key.

Posted by Fortyfour on 2016-12-15 18:38:34

I agree that getting any of these changes would be very difficult. I think that compulsory voting just requires that a voter either shows up at the poll on voting day or submits an absentee ballot of some sort. It doesn't require that a voter makes a specific either/or choice. In your example of Bernie voters they could still write in Bernie on their ballot, vote for a third party candidate, or simply leave the presidential selection blank, and then cast a vote for other candidates and / or referenda on the ballot.I think that the parties are already trying to get their voters to the polls and you are correct it is hard work. But as far as the legal requirement to vote it would be an after the fact situation. Careful records are already kept about who has or has not voted in any given election

Posted by Elle on 2016-12-15 17:42:52

Why would a multi state recount necessarily take months? Wouldn't they all be counting simultaneously ? And why would the country necessarily be in upheaval? Wouldn't we have a sitting president who could remain until a possible recount was completed? As it is now we have more than 5 weeks between the popular vote and the Electoral College voting followed by another 4 weeks before the next president is sworn in.

Posted by Elle on 2016-12-15 17:30:01

Hey Rover, you might be surprised at what a candidate that promotes a single payer health insurance system could accomplish in a so-called Red State. I am small business owner who is in the individual health insurance market. That market will likely not exist in 2018. My vote will go to the candidate that has a real plan to address my insurance needs in an affordable fashion. My vote will also go to the candidate that will help me afford my kids' college tuition with student loans that will feature low interest rates (3% or less) and the ability to contribute to more tax advantaged college savings accounts. Rover, the Democratic Establishment just lost a major election and new voices are needed to get the party back into power. Bring on Elizabeth Warren and others to set the new Democratic agenda.

Posted by Fortyfour on 2016-12-15 12:21:23

Of this list, the most appealing item to me is the challenge to voter suppression. In terms of the electoral college, I think it should be reformed but kept intact. The reform of the electoral college is a simple one, remove two electoral votes from every state. The Wyomings and such will be reduced to one electoral vote and therefore CA, NY, FL, & TX will enjoy something closer to their actual size relative to the smaller states. The danger in canning the electoral college is how to perform a recount if the popular vote is razor thin. Instead of conducting a recount in a WI, MI, & PA, you could be looking at a nationwide recount and that would take multiple months to conduct, with the country in upheaval.

Posted by Fortyfour on 2016-12-15 12:10:56

the CIA? are you kidding me? the CIA knew that 2 of the 9-11 hijackers were here and deliberately DID NOT notify the FBI. (See book The Looming Tower/Al Qaeda and the Road to 9-11.)The CIA has their own agenda, and it has nothing to do with whats good for the country.

Posted by Goldcoaster on 2016-12-14 15:33:55

Translation: We lost. So we need to change the system.Here is a thought. Remove California from the equation, and Trump wins in a landslide. And California is really undemocratic because it is 1/2 Hispanic with 1/2 of our illegal alien population and ALWAYS goes democrat.

Posted by Goldcoaster on 2016-12-14 15:31:21

Higher voter turnout does not inherently lead to Democratic victories in state races, even in in New York and California. Also, instituting mandatory voting in a state as a partisan measure is a really good way to get your opposition elected.

New York state, in particular, could do a lot to increase voter turnout by eliminating it's punitive voter registration laws.

Posted by someguythatpostsstuff on 2016-12-13 09:16:05

So, you are so foolish to think New York and California will be picking our President. This is why the Electoral College was set in place. Get over the BS Trump won and Crooked Hillary who should be going to prison list. She a loser.

Posted by jimmyk520000 on 2016-12-13 04:27:56

Very important additions to the "counter-Constitution":7. Money is not speech8. Corporations are not people

Posted by Rob Lewis on 2016-12-12 23:38:40

be a cold day in hell before the heartland lets California and new York city dictate the countries direction

Posted by lilbear68 on 2016-12-12 21:35:06

It is the MEDIA who have created the Hatred and the KKK ... i don't believe and i'm against the KKK , racism , etc. but " I AM FOR TRUMP " .................... blame it to the MEDIA , it was them who created it.

Posted by Ayasiv Db on 2016-12-12 12:49:10

Oh please where do they find these UN American Corporate Owned Clintonista Clowns? So Tommy you'd rather Civil War? I believe in Liberty. I believe in Justice for All. I DO NOT believe in Popular Rule being promoted by a few misguided or criminally corrupt Elitist fools who control 100% of the Corporate OWNED Talking MSM Heads at the NYT and the LAT. Do you? I trust the US Electoral System to do what it was designed to do and elect Donald Trump as President, but if the misguided stooges in NYC and LA want to live in the Worlds Largest Open Air Prisons like in Aleppo or Donetsk then by all means let the NYT, LAT and the rest of the Endless War for Profits and Control Elitists and their Corporate Media lead you by the nose into supporting and fomenting Treason and Civil War in America! All of this is being brought back home to US by the same Liberal/Progressive Elitist Terrorist Proxies just like they did in Syria and Ukraine! Worse they will all be long gone (as they have already promised to leave) so the rest of you should now be very careful what you wish for and never doubt that is what these Corrupt Elitists and their Stooges are really talking about..... Is that the future you wish upon OUR Children?

Posted by MUW on 2016-12-12 10:34:59

Assuming blue states can achieve binding mutual support with Canada and Mexico, red states would be essentially surrounded and isolated from international commerce. Wouldn't require much rooftop activity to grind their gears although sabotage and insurgency would make things ugly. Of course, Drumpf would still have Russia on his side...toss in a enough nukes and we'll all be back to hunting and gathering.

Might be worth it just to rid the planet of television and internet, tho.

Posted by J_Deadeye on 2016-12-12 08:05:12

Well, you can have your fantasy, Mr. Geoghegan. If rigging their primary didn't rile them up about their corrupt, feckless party, nothing will. Dem voters have become nothing more than the Stockholm syndrome en mass. Pretty much the same as the Repugs. Both parties are complicit in the same sick joke on America. Both need to be flushed down the toilet with the rest of the excrement.

Posted by cactuspie on 2016-12-12 00:14:27

Me, too. And in many countries voting day is a paid day off. I think it might be smarter to make voting day a paid day off for everyone who votes.

Posted by slouching on 2016-12-11 23:50:09

I know and they always make ad hominem remarks to bolster their fictional arguments. "You're an idiot". "Throw your little tantrums", "one stupid SOB". Its as if they aren't fully realized humans with empathy, curiosity and the ability to think critically. Are they Russian propagandists? And I'm only half kidding.

Posted by slouching on 2016-12-11 23:45:44

All those Democrats you mention are a million times better than any repub in the House or the Senate.

Posted by slouching on 2016-12-11 23:42:00

I don't think that -- given the evidence -- Democrats can be labeled as sore losers. there are real questions that go to the heart of this election cycle. the party needs big changes indeed. changes that reflect a populist, diverse community.

Posted by southmpls on 2016-12-11 09:19:30

these ideas are worth exploring...something has to change and we have to start somewhere. I like the First Amendment voting requirement as equal to jury duty argument. the mere suggestion of accentuating the divide is a starting place. the Republican-lite Democrats are all about preserving the institution (and their fortunes) rather than creating a nation in which regular folk matter.

Posted by southmpls on 2016-12-11 09:17:06

The only viable way of voting in a 100% corrupt, totalitarian, police-state is from the rooftops!

Posted by Banecroft on 2016-12-11 03:07:41

I like Goeghan generally, but this is a really stupid, slipshod article.

Can we please start with something practical? Each state that achieves a Democratic "trifecta" -- Governor and both state legislative chambers -- passes the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. It is mind-blowing that point 3 is a brainfart that would have no binding legal impact and point 4 proposes a half-baked shotgun approach to using compacts to achieve motherhood, apple pie and single payer, when hardworking non-pundit activists have already moved the country more than halfway to abolishing the Electoral College. The NPVIC is an actual thing, already passed into law by states wtith 165 electoral votes. And once that number passes 270, the Electoral College is effectively abolished, full stop. No mandatory voting, no hoping that red states will buckle with shame when the margin increases by another 10 million votes, when we all know that they will just dismiss those as more fraudulent votes by "those people."

This is one of these "I'm really smart, just ask me," pieces written with zero research, even less thought and is profoundly insulting to people who have been doing the real work that Geoghan totally ignores. Earth to Geoghan: if Democrats just do some actual political organizing, take over the state government in a few more states, pass the NPVIC, the Electoral College is gone. How about that? The thing the party actually needs -- massive investment in grassroots organizing at the state level, is the the thing that will actually deliver structural change to solidify a progressive majority. Who'da thunk it?

Posted by jcc2455 on 2016-12-10 23:22:21

Really nice metaphor regarding the Electoral College procedures. I was a bit shocked at Mr. Geoghegan's seeming lack of understanding why we have two different branches of our Congress to represent the people and different States of this country.

My personal opinion is that the Electoral College should be retained but the votes should by law be apportioned in direct proportion to the popular votes within each state. Our country is too big and the individual States have too much variations to fairly elect a President strictly on a popular vote majority.

Posted by oldredleg on 2016-12-10 22:39:48

With all due respect, counselor, I think you should focus on labor issues. Let's repeal the Raft-Harley Act, legalize in-situs picketing, secondary boycotts. Eliminate the right-to-work laws.

As a labor union member I would support an effort for that. On many of you other suggestions I would be opposed to your ideas.

The Electoral College serves as a buffer or insulator between the popular vote and the presidential selection. This is what the original writers of the constitution intended. Eliminate that state laws that make voting by the members of the Electoral College compulsory to vote for the states voters. Return them the choice they originally had. Do you think Trump would be elected in this case?

Now you want to reduce the number of Senators that Wyoming has, just because they have a smaller population? They already have fewer House members based on population. Two Senators from each state works quite well, leave this alone.

Compulsory voting? So you want to take away the freedom of choice? If someone chooses not to vote that makes my vote more significant.

Finally, lets look at baseball and your Chicago Cubs:

Major League Baseball needs to abolish its electoral college model of unfairly awarding the World Series championship to teams that win the most games in a seven game series, rather than the team that scores the most runs. This year, 2016, the Indians and Cubs both scored 27 runs, but the Cubs were unfairly awarded the championship on the basis of four individual games in which they out-scored the Indians. A shared championship trophy should have been awarded.

Likewise, in 2002 (Giants 44 - Angels 41), 1997 (Indians 44 - Marlins 37), and 1991 (Braves 29 - Twins 24), the teams scoring the most runs for the entire series were unfairly denied the championship because they were out-scored in four individual games. This is clearly unfair, and Major League Baseball needs to address this injustice by abolishing its antiquated system of awarding championships based on the results of individual games!

I'm sure former President Al Gore would agree with me on this.

Posted by kastigar on 2016-12-10 20:19:29

Compulsory voting?

Are you kidding?

What is this - North Korea?

Posted by gregoryabutler on 2016-12-10 19:11:08

So you want to throw the election into the house and all would consider the confirmation of a conservative Republican judge selected by a neo-liberal president to the SCOTUS as a "wonderful" outcome of that process? This is supposed to some sort of victory for the progressive cause? Really?

Posted by fredcdobbs on 2016-12-10 18:16:46

If the win was fair, fine, but I think because of what the CIA said, we need to investigate and do a recount!

Posted by Shirley Ferrell Smith on 2016-12-10 16:56:03

This is one stupid SOB! You lost, get over it.

Posted by georgef69 on 2016-12-10 14:52:57

I'm here to screw up your math. I am neither.

Posted by dakotaslt49 on 2016-12-10 14:41:43

I am surprized that 90% of the comments are clearly from sociopaths and KKK members.

Posted by ziggourat on 2016-12-10 14:22:17

Exactly what a slavery apologist would have said to an abolitionist in pre-bellum America. Your view of the world is much too static.

Posted by sammymcgee on 2016-12-10 14:00:57

What rubbish.

Obama played the race card.

Hillary played the woman card.

But America played the TRUMP card.

So it's over.

Deal with it. About all Hillary can get now is the "Get Out of Jail Free" card.

Posted by Bob Fritz on 2016-12-10 13:05:16

There's no way the Supreme Court would uphold forced voting. Besides, can you imagine the logistical effort involved to get every single eligible voter to actually vote? And the vast opportunity for those "assisting" in the inevitable door-to-door canvassing to "urge" voters' opinions? To say nothing of first amendment protections. How many Bernie supporters do you know that sat home rather than voting for Hillary? The reference to jury duty is specious: any juror may be excused from trials which impinge on deeply held moral positions.

And a second Constitution? Two problems. First, anyone remember the Articles of Confederation? They fell apart because there was no central government with the power to compel member states to abide by the agreement. Furthermore, any such agreement which allowed individual rights under the real Constitution to be violated could be set aside by the Supreme Court.

Go ahead and throw your little tantrums. You may slow things down a bit, but all you'll really do is prove to us in "flyover" country why you can't be trusted to make decisions for us.

Posted by Derek on 2016-12-10 12:47:07

You're an idiot. Try joining the real world. If you think some Bernie type is going to win in ND or WV or MO you're living in a dream world. You leftist purity types have no idea how to think politically. Grow the hell up.

Posted by rover27 on 2016-12-10 12:24:17

Dems, by and large, have sold their backbones for corporate cash. You have a great set of ideas, but it will require driving out the corporate Dems to make it happen. I, for one, would love to see them all replaced by people endorsed by Bernie's Our Revolution. People like McCaskill, Heitkamp, Warner, and dozens of others must go and be replaced by populists who really give a damn about the average person. The leadership in Congress, especially Pelosi and Schumer are creatures of the 1%. They must go as well.

Posted by chrisdarling on 2016-12-10 09:42:57

DEMS are Pathetic ...sore Loser ...regarding popular votes, the 3M are added that includes legal documented persons but non-citizen votes (as the media says).. Give " TRUMP a chance "..HILLARY is EVIL, TRUMP is EVIL as the media says...but give TRUMP a CHANCE to prove..HILLARY is just another similar OBAMA style of presidency